I was interviewed for David’s story and in the course of our long-ish chat I raised the idea that the Dom Post and the other media outlets, who bought into the story subsequently, actually owed the public a certain level of disclosure about sources.

I know this flies in the face of accepted ethical wisdom about protecting sources and so-called “shield laws”, but I argue that in this case the motivation of sources is actually a key element of the story.

This is particularly salient when everyone involved – editors, journos, PR managers and the central protagonist – all admit that scrambling for the media high ground (and a position of control) was a key objective of both sides.

Unfortunately, we – the readers and viewers – were not privy to who the sources were, though in David’s piece, the Team Veitch PR expert, Glenda Hughes, says that she was reactive to the media most of the time and only admitted to “selling” a story on one or two occasions.

I am still mulling over a more considered and lengthy post on this story. In my view it is a fantastic case study of media actions – in this case feeding on one of its own – almost an act of cannibalism. I’m sure none of us (media people) would like to be in Tony Veitch’s shoes and see our career shredded.

I actually have sympathy for everyone caught in the shockwaves of this story.

Kristin Dunne Powell has been unfairly and disgustingly labeled a “bunny boiler” [cultural reference to Sharon Stone’s character in Basic Instinct]. Her life will never be the same again.

Tony Veitch does not at the moment have a life – he is medically unfit for work, marriage and friendship – he may well be the “author” of his own misfortune, but he got plenty of help from the news media.

Zoe Veitch is also a victim, her performance during the whole saga was as “stoic wife”, but she too got dragged through the PR fence backwards from time to time.

The families of key figures are all scarred and substantially out-of-pocket. Therefore we have to ask, was it worth it? Was the public interest really served by the attention this story got?

I don’t think the media covered themselves in glory on this story. I will post something more substantial later.

I’m also considering doing an academic paper on this for a journalism studies conference in December. If anyone would like to talk to me about it, particularly any journos or editors, I’d love to hear from you.

ethicalmartiniATgmail.com is the best way to get in touch. Or you can leave a comment to this post. For the record, if you leave a comment I will assume that it is public and that you consent to me using it in any research publication that results (eg: conference paper and/or journal article).

It’s always good to have friends in high places and there’s no higher celebrity spot than sporting hero it seems.

Tony Veitch was undoubtedly helped by the slew of celebrity testimonials he received in the last few days before his trial in the Auckland District Court this week. While there’s nothing wrong with asking friends to write you references, it does show that in the rarified atmosphere of Planet Celebrity, a note from your middle class mates is much more valuable than any kind of letter from your social worker or drug counsellor.

And isn’t it nice to have an opportunity to work off your sentence helping out your favourite charities, rather than breaking rocks in some Hellish real prison.

Despite the nice idea that the legal system treats everyone the same and that the colour of your money, or the fame of your friends, doesn’t matter, there’s no doubt that real class will always triumph. Having a well-paid publicist in your corner is also a useful Joker in the pack.

Now the task of dissecting Veitch’s real level of remorse begins and, so far, it’s probably around 50 per cent.

Embattled sports presenter and journalist Tony Veitch has taken a guilty plea in the Auckland District Court today and immediately leapt onto the front foot to vow revenge on media outlets who, he says, went too far in their coverage of his case. [NZ Herald]

Veitch pleaded guilty to one charge of reckless disregard causing industry and, in what seems to be a classic bargaining maneuver six other charges were dropped by the prosecution.

It’s likely that his sentence of 300 hours community service and a $10,000 fine will seem like a let-off to some, particularly given Veitch’s profile and the debate about community standards and role models that has accompanied this story for the past nine months. Ethical Martini’s coverage is archived here.

Now phase 2 begins-the legal battle over who said what to whom, when, where, how and why. You can’t hide from the 5 Ws and the H.

Tony Veitch has spoken publicly for the first time in almost eight months. In a statement sent to the Sunday Star Times and reported today, Veitch thanked Sky TV sports presenter Murray Deaker for throwing him a lifeline.

Veitch appeared on Deaker’s show last Wednesday and is slated for more guest spots in coming weeks, according to the SST.

Tony’s comments to the paper make interesting reading, particularly between the lines.

However, not everyone is singing Veitchy’s praises. According to the Herald on Sunday, legal eagles have been engaged to force an apology from Willie Jackson who said putting Tony back on television while there’s a “huge question mark” over his head was “not appropriate”.

Apparently Jackson went further than this on his radio show and Veitch’s lawyers were talking defamation before Jackson apologised.

What a coincidence, it seems that the same (or almost identical) statement was sent to the HoS as well as the SST, which makes me think it was a choreographed move. It just goes to show the value of having a good [spin] doctor in the house, or at least on a fat retainer.

Tony Veitch is to begin the resurrection of his broadcasting career this week on Sky TV. I agree with the proposition that Veitch should be allowed to get on with his life, including returning to work. It seems his trial on assault charges will be delayed, perhaps into next year, and in the meantime there’s a presumption of innocence that must hold. [Tony Veitch’s TV comeback, HoS, 15 Feb]

Veitch has already had his “trial by media” with the assault allegations being thoroughly aired last year in the period between the story breaking in The Dominion Post (July) and the time he was charged with the offences (August).

He has a right to earn a living by doing what he is good at. However, I’m a little less sanguine about Tony’s nomination as “sports presenter of the year” in the TV Guide annual awards.